THE 


PRINCETON    REVIEW. 


JULY    1840. 


No.    III. 


the  moral  world? 

The  general  principles  of  morality,  everywhere  and  always 
admitted  by  civilized  man,  are  proper  subjects  of  that  civil 
legislation,  which  most  jealously  watches  over  the  rights  of 
conscience;  and  such  legislation  will  be  useful  in  all  commu- 
nities where  the  relation  between  civil  law  and  morals  is 
rightly  understood.  Civil  laws  may  be  an  index  of  the  con- 
science of  the  people;  -and  such  they  must  be,  to  answer 
a  valuable  moral  purpose.  Laws  may  express  either  what 
the  people  are  willing  to  do,  or  what  they  believe  to  be  right. 
As  mere  exponents  of  the  public  inclination,  they  yield  no 
aid  to  virtue;  for  the  spirit  which  made  the  laws,  would  as 
promptly  have  clone  the  things  enjoined,  as  made  the  laws 
enjoining.  No  law  was  needed  to  secure  such  ends.  The 
laws  and  the  prevailing  morality.are  on  the  same  level;  and 
neither  can  elevate  the  other.  The  disciple  is  not  above 
his  master.  On  the  principle  that  civil  law,  in  relation  to 
morals,  may  indicate  only  the  popular  propensity,  no  good 
statutes  can  come,  till  the  majority  of  the  people  are  inclined 
and  resolved  to  do  what  the  laws  are  to  enjoin;  and  then 
what  is  their  use?  Why  make  laws  to  enforce  what  the  peo- 
ple do  by  nature  without  them?  But  if  the  laws  may  ex- 
press the  dictates  of  the  people's  conscience,  and  enforce  by 
penalty  what  the  people  believe  to  be  right,  then  until  con- 
science receives  a  perfect  obedience,  the  laws  will  continue 
in  advance  of  the  public  morality,  guiding  the  people  by 
their  teachings,  and  urging  them  by  their  authority  and 
sanctions,  in  the  course  of  moral  improvement 


322  Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyter ianism.         [July 

That,  in  the  progress  of  society,  the  social  principle  will 
yet  more  effectually  aid  the  due  ascendency  of  conscience  as 
the  guide  of  human  action,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt. 
We  look  in  the  future  for  a  better  understanding,  and  a  bet- 
ter use  of  the  connexion  between  conscience  and  the  civil 
law.  The  day  indeed  will  never  come  in  the  life  time  of 
true  freedom,  when  the  state  will  undertake  to  rule  the  indi- 
vidual sense  of  moral  duty.  But  we  expect  the  existence  of 
such  knowledge,  and  of  such  sincerity,  that  men,  conscious 
as  well  of  moral  as  of  physical  infirmity,  will  deem  it  a  le- 
gitimate end  of  society,  to  secure  moral  as  well  as  physical 
strength ;'and  that  civil  law,  the  vital  organ  of  social  strength, 
will  join  its  influence  with  that  of  other  institutions  of  socie- 
ty, in  vindicating  and  confirming  the  practical  supremacy  of 
conscience  in  the  human  soul.  This  will  be  a  welcome 
harbinger  of  the  moral  renovation  of  the  world.  With  the 
light  which  now  shines  on  the  path  of  moral  duty,  conscience 
points  man  towards  the  true  perfection.  It  is  the  candle  of 
God  in  the  soul,  lighted  at  the  blaze  of  the  Sun  of  Righteous- 
ness; and  from  the  pure  radiance  of  that  heavenly  orb,  its 
bright,  flame  is  perpetually  fed.  Unlike  the  tapers  of  the 
evening  fireside,  and  the  twinklings  of  the  evening  sky,  which 
grow  dim  as  the  king  of  day  approaches;  it  brightens  as  the 
sun  ascends,  and  is  preparing  its  fulness  of  1'ghtto  be  dispen- 
sed in  the  noontide  of  the  millennial  day. 


Art.  II. — A  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  Genius,  and 
Character  of  American  Presby  terianism.  Together 
toith  a  Review  of  the  "  Constitutional  History  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
By  Charles  Hodge,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary at  Princeton,  N.  J."  By  William  Hill,  D.  D., 
of  Winchester,  Virginia.  Washington  City.  1839.  pp.224. 

Dr.  Hill  informs  his  readers  that  about  eight  years  ago 
he  was  appointed  by  the  presbytery  of  Winchester  to  write 
the  history  of  that  judicatory.  He  was  thus  led  to  make  in- 
vestigations into  the  early  history  of  Prcsbyterianism  in 
Virginia;  which  were  so  successful  as  to  induce  him  to  de- 
termine to  write  the  history  of  our  church  in  that  state.    The 


1840.]        Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.  323 

synod  encouraged  this  enterprise,  and  appointed  a  member 
of  each  presbytery  to  afford  him  every  assistance  he  might 
require.     In  order  to  do  justice  to  his  subject,  he  found  it 
would  be  necessary  to  investigate  the  introduction  of  Pres- 
byterianism into  America,  and  for  this  purpose,on  two  several 
occasions,  obtained  from  Dr.  Green  access  to  the  early  records 
of  our  church.     In  1837,  Dr.  Hill  had  already  prepared  for 
the  press  an  ordinary  sized  octavo  volume,  containing  the 
fruits  of  his  labours.     Before  publishing  it,  however,  he  de- 
termined to  print  a  few  sketches,   in  order  to  elicit  what 
might  be  said  in  opposition  to  his  views.     This  measure,  he 
says,  had  the  desired  effect  ;  and   he  pays  Prof.  Hodge's 
volume  the  compliment  of  saying  :  "  It  no  doubt  contains  the 
substance  of  all  that  can  be  9aid  in  opposition  to  the  positions 
I  have  taken;  "  nay  more,  that  it  is  "  to  be  looked  upon  as 
the  joint  production  of  the  strength  of  a  party,  aided  by  men 
venerable  for  age,  experience  and  talents,  and  having  access 
to  the   best  sources  of  information  and   means  of  defence." 
This  only  shows  how  low  "  the   party"   has  fallen  in  Dr. 
Hill's  esteem;  for  he  every  where  speaks  of  the  book  in 
question  as  unworthy  of  the  least  confidence;  and  seems  to 
regard  its  ostensible  author  as  ready  at  any  time  to  sacrifice 
truth  "  to  serve  a  purpose,"  and  as  destitute  of  candour  or 
even  common  honesty  as  a  historian. 

The  publication  of  Professor  Hodge's  work  has  had  one 
effect,  which  the  readers  of  Dr.  Hill  have  reason  to  regret. 
The  first  draught  of  his  work  was  not  controversial.  "  I  did 
not  then,"  he  tells  us,  "expect  serious  opposition  from  any 
quarter.  That  which  had  cost  me  so  much  labour  is  now 
laid  aside  as  not  suited  to  the  occasion.  I  had  to  begin  my 
work  anew,  and  prepare  to  defend  every  inch  of  ground  I 
ventured  upon.  This  must  be  my  apology  for  the  very  im- 
perfect dress  in  which  this  introductory  number  must  appear 
to  every  intelligent  reader.  It  is  a  hurried  and  hasty  pro- 
duction; a  want  of  method  is  very  apparent  throughout;  the 
importunity  of  friends  would  not  allow  me  to  transcribe  it} 
and  I  could  procure  assistance  from  no  one;  while  the  calls 
of  duty  and  various  avocations  were  constantly  causing  in- 
terruptions and  making  breaks  in  the  work."  We  hope  Dr. 
Hill  will  prosecute  his  orignal  design,  and  after  easing  his 
mind  of  all  controversial  matters,  publish  a  history  of  our 
church,  especially  as  it  has  appeared  in  Virginia,  which  is 
not  controversial. 

Whenever  there  is  a  controversy,  it  is  desirable  to  know 

VOL.  XII.   no.  3.  42 


324  Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.       f  Jult 

the  state  of  the  question;  to  have  the  point  at  issue  distinctly 
presented.  Professor  Hodge  took  the  ground  that  our  church,, 
from  its  first  organization  in  this  country,  adopted  that  form 
of  government  which  had  been  previously  adopted  in  Scot- 
land, Ireland,  Holland,  and  by  the  Protestants  of  France. 
He  described  the  system  intended  as  requiring  the  govern- 
ment of  particular  congregations  to  be  vested  in  the  pastor  and 
eldership,  and  not  in  the  brotherhood,  and  the  association  of 
several  churches  under  one  presbytery,  composed  of  minis- 
ters and  elders;  and  as  providing  for  provincial  and  national 
synods,  in  which  were  vested  the  authority  of  review  and 
control,  and  the  right  to  set  down  rules  for  the  government 
of  the  church.*  There  are  here  three  points  presented,  with 
tolerable  distinctness.  First,  the  leading  principles  of  Pres- 
byterianism;  second,  the  prevalence  of  this  system  of  govern- 
ment in  the  places  mentioned;  and,  third,  its  adoption  by  our 
own  church.  There  is  no  question  here  about  the  rigour 
with  which  the  system  was  enforced,  about  the  authority  at- 
tributed to  it,  whether  it  was  of  divine  right,  or  apostolic 
example,  or  of  mere  expediency;  whether  it  was  essential  to 
the  being  of  a  church,  or  merely  the  best  form  of  its  govern- 
ment. Not  one  of  these  questions  was  raised.  It  was  merely 
stated  what  Presbyterianism  is,  and  asserted  that  certain 
specified  churches  were  Presbyterian.  One  would  think 
that  the  only  course  for  an  opponent  to  take,  was  to  attack 
one  or  the  other  of  these  positions;  to  show  that  Presbyte- 
rianism does  not  include  the  above  mentioned  principles;  or 
that  it  was  not,  in  that  form,  adopted  by  the  churches  in 
question.  This,  we  admit,  would  have  been  a  rather  adven- 
turous enterprise;  still,  it  was  the  only  thing  to  be  done. 

Dr.  Hill  has  seen  fit  to  take  a  very  different  course.  He 
first  asserts,  that  Professor  Hodge  contends  that  our  church 
adopted  the  strict  Scotch  system,  and  then  gives  the  follow- 
ing description  of  that  system:  "  It  is  now  contended  that  it 
is  essential  to  that  system  that  the  church  should  be  govern- 
ed by  church  sessions,  consisting  of  the  pastor  and  ruling 
elders;  that  these  elders  must  now  be  elected  for  life,  and 
ordained  in  a  certain  form,  or  else  the  want  of  it  will  vitiate 
all  that  comes  in  contact  with  it.  Though  the  Scotch  church 
sometimes  chose  elders  from  year  to  year,  that  is  not  the 
system  now  pleaded  for.  Again,  there  must  be  a  presbytery 
composed  of  pastors  and  delegates  from  the  elderships  of 

*  Constitutional  History,  Part  I.  p.  12. 


IS4G.]         Dr.  Hill's  Jlmerican  Presbyterianism.         325 

many  distinct  congregations;  there  must  be  synods,  composed 
■of  three  or  more  presbyteries;  and,  to  finish  the  system,  there 
must  be  a  General  Assembly,  composed  of  the  delegates  of 
the  different  presbyteries,  and  a  certain  portion  from  the  dif- 
ferent towns  and  boroughs;  also  from  universities;  the  whole 
presided  over  by  the  king's  commissioner.  This  General 
Assembly,  to  possess  full  powers  to  do  whatever  they  may 
think  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and  to  deal  out 
such  powers  as  the  Assembly  may  please  to  the  inferior 
courts,  retaining  the  same  to  themselves  at  the  same  time, 
when  they  think  proper  to  exercise  them.  That  this  General 
Assembly  has  not  only  the  power  to  suppress  popery,  pre- 
lacy, heresy,  schism,  profaneness,  &.c,  but  are  bound  to  do 
so;  and,  if  the  civil  power  will  not  aid  them  in  the  work, 
they  have  jure  divino  authority  to  do  it  notwithstanding. 
That  no  liberty  or  indulgence  is  to  be  given  to  those  who 
may  differ  from  it  in  opinion  concerning  doctrine,  govern- 
ment, or  practice.  No  intercourse  or  communion  is  to  be 
held  with  other  sectaries;  nor  will  they,  to  this  day,  admit 
even  one  of  their  old  school  advocates,  from  this  or  any  other 
country,  into  their  pulpits,  or  to  sit  in  their  judicatories. 
The  system  will  not,  and  never  did,  admit  compromise  with 
any  other.  It  will  have  the  whole  or  nothing.  They  are 
consistent,  if  their  divine-right  claim  can  be  made  out.  It  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  then,  that  even  the  aliens  and  retainers 
of  this  system  should  exhibit  something  of  the  same  uncom- 
promising and  domineering  spirit;  for  it  is  an  essential  ele- 
ment or  jirinciple  of  the  system  itself.  Witness  the  solemn 
league  and  covenant,  and  its  history  and  effects  in  Europe  and 
elsewhere.  The  Scottish  system  is  essentially  and  necessa- 
rily illiberal  and  intolerant;  it  cannot  be  otherwise  to  be 
consistent,  and  it  is  made  still  worse  by  its  connexion  with 
the  state,  as  established  by  law.  History  does  not  afford  an 
instance  of  a  compromise,  or  an  act  of  tolerance,  further  than 
they  were  compelled  by  a  power  superior  to  their  ecclesias- 
tical courts.  Such  is  the  Paternity*  which  Professor 
Hodge  is  anxious  to  establish  for  himself  and  party."  p.  6-7. 
It  is  the  Scotch  system,  thus  described,  which  as  Dr.  Hill  fre- 
quently asserts,  Professor  Hodge  contends  was  adopted  by  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  this  country.  It  is  very  obvious 
that  all  discussion  with  such  an  opponent  must  be  useless. 

*  In  this,  as  in  the  subsequent  extracts,  we  give  Dr.  Hill  the  advantage  of 
his  capitals  and  italics. 


k 


326        Br.  Hill's  American  Presbyter ianism.        [July 

Should  any  American  Episcopalian  say  that  his  church  was 
the  daughter  of  the  church  of  England,  and  had  adopted  the 
essential  principles  of  her  form  of  government,  he  certainly 
would  treat  with  silence  the  assertion  that  he  thereby  claimed 
the  lordly  titles,  the  varied  powers,  or  exclusive  principles 
of  the  English  hierarchy. 

As  to  the  real  point  in  debate,  Dr.  Hill  has  as  yet  done 
nothing.  He  has  still  to  prove  that  Presbyterianism  is  not 
what  Professor  Hodge  stated  it  to  he;  or  that  it  did  not  pre- 
vail in  the  Prostestant  churches  of  Scotland,  Ireland,  Hol- 
land, and  France;  or  that  our  church  did  not  adopt  that  form 
of  government.  Until  he  does  one  or  the  other  of  these 
things,  we  may  safely  leave  the  main  point  in  dispute  just 
where  it  is.  If  he  wishes  to  prove  that  our  church  was 
not  bigoted,  illiberal,  and  persecuting,  whom  will  he  find  to 
oppose  him?  If  he  wishes  to  prove  that  she  was  catholic, 
tolerant  and  Christian  in  all  her  principles,  whom  will  he  find 
to  deny  it?     She  may  be  all  that,  and  yet  Presbyterian. 

Though  it  is  not  our  object  to  appear  as  the  eulogists  or 
apologists  of  the  church  of  Scotland,  we  think  it  right  to 
make  a  remark  on  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Hill  allows  him- 
self to  speak  on  that  subject.  A  specimen,  though  a  very 
inadequate  one,  has  just  been  given  of  the  style  in  which  he 
writes  of  the  Scottish  church.  He  constantly  speaks  of  it  as 
rigid,  illiberal,  intolerant,  persecuting — as  the  enemy  of  all 
religious  liberty.  He  says,  it  always  has  been  and  must  be  so, 
since  this  uncompromising,  domineering  spirit  is  an  essen- 
tial element  of  the  system  which  that  church  has,  adopted. 
How  different  was  the  manner  in  which  our  fathers  were 
accustomed  to  speak  on  this  subject!  In  a  letter  writ- 
ten in  1710,  by  the  original  presbytery,  to  the  synod 
of  Glasgow,  it  is  said,  We  address  ourselves  to  you,  "  know- 
ing none  so  proper  to  apply  unto,  and  repose  our  confidence 
upon  as  yourselves,  our  reverend  brethren  of  the  church  of 
Scotland,  whom  we  sincerely  honour  and  affectionately  es- 
teem as  fathers."  Both  the  synods  of  Philadelphia  and  New- 
York  professed  to  look  upon  that  church  as  their  parent. 
The  latter  body  called  themselves  "the  young  daughter  of 
the  church  of  Scotland."  This  was  the  language  of  the  Ten- 
nents,  the  Blairs,  of  Davies  and  of  Finley.  They  declared 
that  they  had  adopted  "  her  standards  of  doctrine,  worship, 
and  discipline  ;"  that  they  were  "  united  with  that  church 
in  the  same  faith,  order,  and  discipline.  Its  approbation  and 
countenance,"  they  say,  "we  have  abundant  testimonies  of. 


1840.]         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.        221 

They,  as  brethren,  receive  us;  and  their  members  we,  as  op- 
portunity offers,  receive  as  ours."  "If  I  am  prejudiced," 
said  President  Davies,  "  in  favour  of  any  church,  it  is  of  that 
established  in  Scotland;  of  which  I  am  a  member,  in  the 
same  sense  that  the  established  church  in  Virginia  is  the 
church  of  England."  The  congregation  in  New-York,  with 
Dr.  Rodgers  and  Joseph  Treat  at  its  head,  frequently  called 
themselves  "  a  dispersion  of  the  church  of  Scotland ."  In  an 
official  document  they  called  themselves:  "The  ministers  of 
ihe  Presbyterian  church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  according 
to  the  Westminister  Confession,  Catechisms  and  Directory, 
agreeable  to  the  established  church  of  Scotland."  The 
united  synod  of  New-York  and  Philadelphia  say:  "Our  ju- 
dicatories, like  those  in  the  church  of  Scotland,  from  which 
we  derive  our  origin,  are  church  sessions,  presbyteries,  and 
synods."  Now,  whatever  else  may  be  doubtful,  one  thing  is 
plain,  viz:  that  Dr.  Hill  is  a  man  of  a  very  different  spirit,  and  of 
very  different  views  from  those  fathers  of  our  church.  It 
would  be  an  insult  to  him  to  say  that  he  belonged  to  the 
same  class  with  them.  They  spoke  of  the  church  of  Scot- 
land as  their  mother.  He  reviles  her.  Christian  men  are  not 
accustomed  to  revile  their  mothers;  whatever  may  be  their 
parents'  faults.  He  must  look  elsewhere,  therefore,  for  sym- 
pathy in  his  abuse  of  the  Scottish  church;  and  we  know  not 
where  he  will  find  it  unless  he  looks  beyond  the  pale  of 
Christianity,  or  at  least  of  the  protestant  communion.  We 
really  do  not  believe  that  his  account  of  the  reformation  in 
Scotland  can  be  matched  by  any  similar  passage  in  any  Pro- 
testant writer.  Professor  Hodge  had  made  the  obvious  re- 
mark, that  the  declaration  contained  in  the  first  Scottish  con- 
fession of  faith,  of  the  right  and  duty  of  the  people  to  resist 
the  tyranny  of  their  rulers,  "was  the  result  of  the  reformation 
being  carried  on  by  the  people."  We  little  thought  that 
this  remark  could  give  offence  or  excite  contradiction. 
There  is  no  more  familiar  historical  fact  than  that  the  re- 
formation in  England  was  conducted  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  government,  and  in  Scotland  in  despite  of 
the  govenment.  To  this  fact  much  of  the  difference  between 
the  churches  in  the  two  countries,  and  much  of  the  difference 
of  the  history  of  the  two  nations  is  to  be  attributed.  Dr. 
Hill,  after  quoting  the  above  remark,  says:  "  We  learn  from 
Buchanan,  Knox  and  others,  what  kind  of  people  they  were, 
how  excited  and  how  they  went  to  work.  VVould  not  any 
one  infer  from  reading  Professor  Hodge's  laudatory  notice 


328  Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.       [July 

of  this  matter,  that  the  people,  the  common  people,  were  all 
now  leavened  with  theprinciplesof  the  reformation?  The  peo- 
ple, the  rascal  multitude,  as  Knox  calls  them,  at  that  time 
neither  knew  nor  cared  any  thing  about  the  reformation.     It 
had  not  reached  them ;  they  had  not  yet  emerged  from  gross  pa- 
pal darkness;  but  were  led  on  by  the  nobles  and  the  heads  of 
their  clans,  and  instigated  by  the  inflammatory  zeal  of  Knox 
and  a  few  others,  just  as  they  would  be  led  to  any  marauding 
or  military  enterprise.     It  was  plunder  that  enkindled  their 
zeal,   and   prompted   them    to  their  exterminating  and  in- 
discriminately  destructive  course.      As    the  principles  in- 
culcated by  the  Reformers,  and  even  the  confession  drawn 
up  by  Knox  himself,  taught  the  people  that  they  had  alright 
to  resist  their  rulers,  and  abolish  their  right  to  govern,  when- 
ever they  should  judge  they  had  exceeded  the  prescribed  li- 
mits of  their  authority  [it  is  well  for  Dr.  Hill  and  all  other 
heirs  of  British  liberty  that  the  people  were  thus  taught],  the 
Reformers,  with  all  they  could  prevail  upon  to  follow  them, 
abrogated  the  powers  of  government  lodged  in  the  hands  of 
the  regent;  took  the  reigns  of  government  into  their  own 
hands,  demolished   popery  and  prelacy,  seized  upon  the  pro- 
perty and  wealth  of  the  church,  and  plunged  the  country  in- 
to a  bloody  civil  war  of  unusual  violence,  [the  Reformers  did 
all  this].     The  weakness  and  inefficiency  of  the  Queen  Re- 
gent's government;  the  death  of  the  king  of  France  who  had 
married  their  young  queen;  the  distraction  in  which  their 
youthful  widowed  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  found  the  country 
when  she  came  over  from  France  and  assumed  the  reigns  of 
government;  her  flight,  imprisonment  and  death  in  England; 
the  long  minority  of  James  VI.,  then  a  young  child,  all  con- 
spired to  give  the  Reformers  the  opportunity  of  intrenching 
and  fortifying  themselves  with  their  new  system  of  rigid,  ex- 
clusive, divine-right  Presbyterianism,  throughout  the  whole 
realm.  This  was  the  introduction  of  the  Scotch  Reformation."* 
p.  83.     In  precisely  the  same  style  the  Papists  are  accustom- 

*  On  the  opposite  page,  he  says,  The  church  of  Scotland,  "  when  it  had 
obtained  the  victory  over  popery,  assumed  the  place  occupied  by  it,  as  the  estab- 
lished religion  of  the  country,  retained  all  the  property  and  advantages  possessed 
by  its  predecessor,  in  churches,  glebes,  seminaries  of  learning,  &c.  It  retained 
the  same  connexion  with  the  civil  authority,  and  contended  for  its  rights  and  for 
the  mastery,  by  weapons  both  carnal  and  spiritual."  The  Romish  church,  before 
the  reformation  was,  in  proportion  to  the  wealth  of  the  country,  one  of  tho  rich- 
est churches  in  Europe.  M'Crie,  in  his  Life  of  Knox,  says,  that  its  clergy  had 
full  one  half  of  the  wealth  of  the  nation  in  their  hands.  The  present  church  of 
Scotland  is  probably  the  poorest  established  church  in  the  world. 


1840.]         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyter ianism.         329 

ed  to  attribute  the  reformation  of  England  to  the  lust  and 
cupidity  of  Henry  VIII.;  and  that  of  Germany  to  the  envy 
and  ambition  of  Luther;  and  thus  too,  there  are  tories,  who 
still  devoutly  believe  that  the  American  revolution  was  no- 
thing but  a  Boston  riot. 

It,  is  not  our  purpose  to  notice  a  tithe  of  the  extraordinary 
things  contained  in  the  volume  before  us;  but  to  confine  our- 
selves to  a  few  points  more  or  less  intimately  connected  with 
the  history  of  our  church.     The  first  of  these  is  the  charac- 
ter   of  French    Presbyterianism.     Dr.  Hill  had  stated    in 
his    sketches    that   the    ecclesiastical    system    of    the    Hu- 
guenots was  much  more  mild  than  those  of  Scotland  and 
Holland.     As  Calvin  was  the  father  of  the  French  churches; 
and  as  the  mild  Calvin  is  not  exactly  that  combination  of 
sounds  with  which  the  public  ear  is  most  familiar,  we  are  not 
surprised  that  Professor  Hodge  was  disposed  to  doubt  whe- 
ther French  Presbyterianism  was  so  characteristically  gentle. 
To  ascertain  this  point,  he  took  the  course  which  we  pre- 
sume will  be  allowed  to  be  the  correct  one;    he  appealed  to 
the  standards  of    doctrine   and  discipline    adopted  by  the 
French  churches;  and  to  the  official  acts  of  their  national  sy- 
nods.    It  then  appeared  from  the  character  of  their  confes- 
sion of  faith;  from  the  rigour  and  frequency  with  which  it  was 
sworn  to,  and  imposed  on  all  ministers  and  teachers;  from 
the  provisions  of  their  form  ef  government;  from  the  powers 
claimed  and  exercised  by  their  national  synods,  and  other 
judicatories,  that  the  epithet  mild  was  the  very  last  which 
any  reader  would  be  disposed  to  apply  to  their  system.     Dr. 
Hill  does  not  attempt  to  gainsay  any  of  these  points.     But 
to  show  that  the  French  were  not  so  strict  as  the  Scotch,  he 
appeals,  in  the  first  place,  to  a  speech  of  James  VI.,  in  which 
he  boasts  of  belonging  to  the  purest  church  on  earth,  to  one 
which  did  not,  as  the  church  of  Geneva  did,  keep  Pasche 
and  Yule,  (Easter  and  Christmas.)     "  Why,"  asks  Dr.  Hill, 
"did  that  stupid  hypocrite,  James,  use  such  language  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  kirk  of  Scotland?     He  spoke  as  he 
had  been  taught,  and  as  he  knew  would  please  that  Assembly. 
The  Scotch  kirk  held  other  reformed  churches  in  contempt, 
because  they  still  observed  pasche  and  yule,  as  Geneva  and 
France  did,  with  other  remnants  of  popery.     The  church  of 
French  protestants,  was  but  a  young  dove  to  the  kirk  of  Scot- 
land," p.  12.     We  must  let  this  proof  of  the  character  of 
French  Presbyterianism  pass  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Dr.  Hill  admits  that  "  the  protestants  of  France  exhibited 


330         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyter ianism.         [Jui/r 

a  very  different  character  at  different  times.  While  they 
were  favoured  at  court,  patronised  by  the  nobility,  and  their 
religion  established  by  the  Queen  of  Navarre,  they  were  like 
Christians  always  have  been  in  temporal  prosperity,  and  at  the 
right  hand  of  power.  They  could  then  persecute  the  poor 
Independents,  who  had  fled  to  their  maritime  coasts  from  op- 
pression in  England.  But  when  their  palladium,  the  famous 
edict  of  Nantes  was  revoked  in  1685,  and  they  were  made 
to  feel  the  effects  of  unrelenting  persecution,  their  characters 
were  entirely  different,  "p.  9.  The  kind  of  history  contain- 
ed in  this  passage  shall  be  noticed  directly.  It  is  enough 
now  to  remark  that  after  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nan- 
tes, the  French  protestants  were  almost  exterminated  or  driv- 
en from  their  country,  and  could  hardly  be  said  to  have  had 
an  ecclesiastical  existence.  That  this  representation  is  not 
too  strong,  will  be  admitted,  for  in  quoting  from  Mosheim 
the  expression,  "While  the  Reformed  churches  in  France 
yet  subsisted,"  Dr.  Hill  subjoins  the  explanation,  "  i.  e.  be- 
fore the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes."  Now  as  the 
question  at  issue  was  the  character  of  French  Presby  terianism, 
one  should  think  that  this  ought  to  be  determined  by  the 
character  of  the  church  while  it  existed,  and  not  after  its  de- 
struction. 

Dr.  Hill  moreover  quotes  largely  from  Mosheim  to  show 
that  some  of  the  French  doctors,  even  before   16S.5,  had  de- 
parted in  several   points  from  the  common  rule  of  faith,  and 
that  notwithstanding  the  condemnation  pronounced  by  their 
synod,  and  the  opposition  of  their  learned  men,  liberal  senti- 
ments gained  ground,  and  were  carried    by  the  French  refu- 
gees into  other  countries.     We  are  ready  to  admit  that  if  the 
subject  in  debate  was  the  doctrinal  opinions  of  the   French 
emigrants  to  this  country,  these  extracts  would  deserve  atten- 
tion.    We  admit  further,  that  so  far  as  they  are  an  offset  to  a 
remark  made    by    Prof.  Hodge,  viz.     "  As  there  was  at  an 
early  period  a  strong  infusion  of  French  Presby  terianism   in 
the  churches  of  this  country,   it  is  well  to  know  something 
of  its  character,"  they  should  have  whatever  weight  proper- 
ly belongs  to  them.     How  much  that  is,  we  will  consider  in 
a  moment.     But  what  have  they  to  do  with  the  question 
started  by  Dr.  Hill  in  his  Sketches,  viz.  the  character  of  Pres- 
byterianism  as  it  prevailed  in  France?     It  may  be  admitted 
that  false  doctrine  had  made  its  appearance  among  the  French 
protestants,  before  their  great  overthrow,  and  that  their  de- 
scendants departed  still  further  from  the  faith,  and  yet  every 


1840.]         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbj/terianis?n.         331 

word  that  Prof.  Hodge  said  about  their  ecclesiastical  system 
be  correct,  every  word  that  Dr.  Hill  said  about  it  be  wrong. 
In  other  words,  the  extracts  from  Mosheim  (the  historical 
verity  of  whose  statements  we  are  far  from  admitting)  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  real  point  at  issue. 

As  to  the  question  which  Dr.  Hill  seems  desirous  to  substi- 
tute for  the  original  one,  viz.  the  character  of  the  French 
refugees,  and  their  influence  upon  our  church,  we  are  willing 
to  meet  him  on  perfectly  fair  terms.  If  he  will  stand  to  his 
admissions  as  to  the  character  of  French  Presbyterianism  be- 
fore the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes,  we  will  allow 
the  influence  of  the  doctrinal  defection  of  some  of  the  French 
theologians  on  the  French  emigrants  to  this  country  to  have 
been  as  great,  as  he  will  allow  the  much  greater  defection  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland  to  have  been  on  the  Scotch  emigrants. 
But  we  cannot  consent  that  the  Scotch  should  not  have  the 
benefit  even  of  heresy.  If  a  little  false  doctrine  made  the 
French  so  different  from  what  they  once  were,  we  cannot  see 
how  more  of  the  same  ingredient  should  leave  the  Scotch  so 
entirely  unchanged. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  we  will  give  our  readers  a  spe- 
cimen of  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Hill  spins  history  out  of 
his  imagination,  and  sets  down  his  vague  impressions  as  posi- 
tive facts.  We  just  quoted  one  passage  in  which  he  gave  an 
account  of  the  state  of  the  French  Church,  when  the  declara- 
tion against  the  Independents  was  made.  He  returns  to  the 
subject,  and  says:  "At  the  time  the  French  synod,  in  the 
year  1644,  passed  the  acts  which  Prof.  Hodge  cites  with  such 
apparent  pleasure,  the  Protestants  of  France  were  in  great  fa- 
vour with  the  reigning  king,  Francis  I.,  who,  out  of  opposi- 
tion to  Charles  V.,  did  many  veryabsurd  and  inconsistent  things 
respecting  the  reformation.  He  would  patronise  or  persecute 
them,  just  as  he  could  make  it  subserve  his  purposes  of  state. 
He  permitted  his  sister,  the  Queen  of  Navarre,  to  establish  the 
reformation  in  the  kingdom  of  Navarre,  and  it  was  during 
these  days  of  prosperity,  and  when  gross  darkness  rested  up- 
on Christians  of  every  nation  respecting  liberty  of  conscience 
and  religious  freedom,  that  those  good  French  Protestants 
did  those  wicked  things  that  Prof.  Hodge  refers  to,  and  which 
I  did  expect  he  would  notice  at  least  with  some  apology  or  mark 
of  disapprobation;  but  no!  the  poor  Independents  were  to  be 
proscribed  and  banished  forthwith  for  fear  they  ivoald  dif- 
fuse the  contagion  cf  their  poison,  and  introduce  a  world 
of  disorders  into  the  provinces,''''  p.    ID,     Francis  I.  was 

VOL.  XII.     no.  3.  13 


332         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbylerianism.         [July 

born  in  1494,  and  ascended  the  throne  1515;  if  still  living  in 
1644,  he  was  in  his  one  hundred  and  twenty-ninth  year  of 
his  reign,  and  the  hundred  and  fiftieth  of  his  life.     According 
to  all  other  accounts  he  died  in  1547,  ninety-seven  years  be- 
fore the  date  of  his  '  great  favour'  to  the  Protestants.     It  need 
hardly  be  said  that  all  the  minor  statements  of  this  paragraph 
are  of  the  same  kind  with    the  preceding.     There  was,  in 
1644,  no  Queen  of  Navarre,  and  no   such  kingdom,  in  the 
sense  in  which  Dr.  Hill  uses  the  terms.     The  Protestants  so 
far  from  being  established,  or  in  high  favour,  or  at  the  right 
hand  of  power,  were  reduced  to  a  state  of  complete  depend- 
ence. By  the  arts  of  Richlieu,  under  the  reign  of  Louis  XIII., 
they  had  by  fraud  or  force  been  despoiled  of  all  their  strong 
towns;  Rochelle,  their  last  defence,  fell  in  1629.     From  that 
time  they  were  at  the  mercy  of  their  enemies.     Louis  XIV. 
came  to  the  throne  in  1643,  his  mother,  Ann  of  Austria,  act- 
ing as  regent,  and  Cardinal  Mazarin  administering  the  go- 
vernment as  prime  minister.     All,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Hill 
has  said   about  the  historical  circumstances  under  which  the 
declaration  against  the  Independents  was  made,  is  pure  fiction. 
He,  of  course,  had  no  intention  to  deceive  any  body;  for 
whom  could  he  hope  to  deceive?     But  it  is  evident  that  he 
has  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  responsibility  of  a  historian; 
that  he  allows  himself  to  write  down  just  what  comes  into 
his  head;  and  that  he  is  the  last  man  in  the  world  who  is  en- 
titled to  speak  of  other  writers  as  unworthy  of  confidence. 

Another  subject  on  which  a  few  words  must  be  said,  is  the 
Presbyterianism  of  the  Puritans.  The  "  want  of  method" 
with  which  Dr.  Hill  says  his  book  is  written,  renders  it  very 
difficult  to  ascertain  his  views  on  this  as  well  as  on  many 
other  points.  The  same  subject  being  introduced  first  here 
and  then  there,  often  coming  on  the  reader  unexpectedly,  and 
what  is  said  in  one  place  being,  at  least  apparently,  contra- 
dicted in  another,  the  most  careful  seeker  after  his  meaning 
gets  bewildered.  Prof.  Hodge  had  stated  that  the  majority 
of  the  Puritans  in  England  were  Presbyterians.  From  the 
contemptuous  manner  in  which  Dr.  Hill  speaks  of  this  asser- 
tion, from  his  quoting  the  declarations  of  others  in  contra- 
diction to  it,  and  from  the  drift  of  a  large  part  of  his  book, 
we  took  it  for  certain  that  he  meant  to  deny  the  statement. 
But  when  we  reached  p.  142,  we  found  him  saying  :  "  Prof. 
Hodge  was  right  in  saying  the  majority  of  the  English  na- 
tion,as  well  asof  the  par!iament,were  Presbyterian  at  that  time; 


1S40.]      Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism  333 

but  he  did  not  tell  us  what  kind  of  Presbyterians  they  were, 
nor  how  they  became  so,  nor  how  long  it  lasted,  but  laboured 
hard  to  make  the  impression  that  there  was  no  material  dif- 
ference between  them  and  the  Scotch,  who  pleaded  divine  au- 
thority for  their  entire  form,  with  their  solemn  league  and 
covenant,  and  that  no  other  system  or  form  of  worship  was 
to  be  tolerated."  It  answered  every  purpose  which  Prof. 
Hodge  had  in  view,  to  show  that  they  adopted  all  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  Presbyterianism.  Any  deficienc}-,  however, 
in  the  exhibition  of  their  precise  character  may  be  readily 
supplied  from  Dr.  Hill.  They  were  the  Presbyterians  who 
framed,  adopted,  and  enforced  the  Westminster  Directory, 
and  those  who  adopted  that  formula,  he  says,  '  Swallowed 
the  Scotch  system  whole.'  Nay  more,  though  on  p.  142  he 
blames  Mr.  H.  for  trying  to  make  the  impression  that  there 
was,  at  the  time  when  the  English  Presbyterians  formed  the 
majority  of  the  nation,  no  material  difference  between  them 
and  the  Scotch,  )'et  on  p.  144  he  himself  tells  us,  "  The 
English  Presbyterians,"  after  the  restoration  of  Charles  II., 
"  began  to  lower  their  tone,"  and  after  having  tried  in  vain  one 
scheme  of  compromise  after  another,  "  they  were  taught  what 
they  might  expect  as  the  legitimate  fruits  of  their  beloved  sys- 
tem objure  divino  uniformity, by  the  famous  St.Bartholomew's 
act  of  1662,  when  two  thousand  ministerial  brethren  were 
silenced  and  reduced  to  beggary,  or  forced  to  fly  from  their 
country.  Thus  terminated  Scotch  Presbyterianism  in  Eng- 
land. High  scenes  were  transacted  in  Scotland  between  these 
two  schemes  of  divine  right  and  uniformity  in  religion.  [It 
is  strange  that  Dr.  Hill  can  speak  thus  lightly  of  one  of  the 
most  horrible  persecutions  Christians  ever  suffered.]  But 
Presbyterianism  in  England  henceforward  assumed  a  new 
character,  and  they  learned  modesty  and  meekness  in  the 
school  of  adversity." 

With  regard  to  the  Puritans  of  New  England,  Dr.  Hill 
represents  Prof.  Hodge  as  claiming  the  majority  of  them 
"as  good  Presbyterians,  and  as  agreeing  with  the  strict  Scotch 
system  ;"  as  contending  strenuously  "  in  the  greater  part  of 
his  introductory  chapter,  that  the  majority  of  the  Puritans, 
by  whom  New  England  was  settled,  were  decidedly  and  to 
all  important  purposes  good  Presbyterians,"  p.  41  ;  as  main- 
taining that  "  the  Independents  bore  but  a  small  proportion 
to  the  Puritans"  in  New  England,  p.  49.  This  assertion  is 
repeated  in  different  forms,  we  presume,  at  least  ten  or  twelve 


334  Dr.  HilVs  American  Presbyterianism.       [July 

times.  What  Prof.  Hodge  really  said  was  merely  this,  "  that 
no  inconsiderable  proportion  of  those  [Puritans]  who  came 
to  America,  preferred  thePresbyterian  form  of  government.'"* 
The  only  occasion,  so  far  as  we  know,  on  which  he  ventures 
to  state  the  proportion,  he  fixes  it  at  one  fouiith.! 

Dr.  Hill  makes  Prof.  Hodge  say  that  the  Cambridge  plat- 
form "  contains  all  the  essential  features  of  Presbyterianism." 
p.  3S  ;  that  it  "  had  all  the  elements  [of  that  system]  pre- 
dominent,"  p.  45.  This  assertion  too,  we  think  must  be  re- 
peated at  least  a  dozen  of  times  ;  and  yet  it  is  just  as  incor- 
rect as  the  preceding.  Mr.  Hodge  said  :  "The  Saybrook 
platform  comes  much  nearer  the  Presbyterian  model  than  that 
of  Cambridge,"  and  even  the  former  he  said  came  short  of 

Presbyterianism.^ 

Dr.  Hill  says  more  than  once  that  Prof.  Hodge  admits 
that  Mr.  Andrews  "  was  a  Congregationalist,"  p.  111.  What 
Mr.  Hodge  really  says  on  that  point  is  "  Mr.  Andrews,  so 
far  from  being  a  Congregationalist,  was  an  old  side  Presbyte- 

*  Constitutional  History,  Part  1,  p.  31. 

f  "  The  number  of  Puritans  who  settled  New  England,"  says  Prof.  Hodge, 
"  was  about  twenty-one  thousand.  If  it  be  admitted  that  three-fourths  of  these 
were  Congregationalists  (which  is  a  large  admission)  it  gives  between  fifteen  and 
sixteen  thousand."     History,  Part  1,  p.  69. 

i  History,  Part  1,  p.  38  and  39.  TheCambridge  platform  was  framed  in  1 648, 49, 
and  expressly  denies  to  synods  the  right  to  perform  any  act  of"  church  authority  or 
jurisdiction."  By  an  assembly,  held  about  1660,  it  was  declared  that  synods  du- 
ly composed,  "  and  proceeding  with  a  due  regard  to  the  will  of  (aod  in  his  word, 
are  to  be  reverenced  as  determining  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  concerning  things  ne- 
cessary to  be  received  and  practised ;"  and  that "  their  judgments  be  acknowledg- 
ed as  decisive."  In  reference  to  these  declarations,  Prof.  Hodge  remarked  ; 
"  Here  it  is  evident  that  the  presbyterial  element  in  those  churches  predomina- 
ted." This  remark  had  no  reference  to  the  Cambridge  platform,  which  taught  a 
veiy  different  doctrine.  Prof.  Hodge  merely  meant  to  say,  that  the  Presbyterians 
in  the  Massachusetts'  churches,  predominated  in  the  assembly  of  1660  so  far  as 
to  procure  a  declaration  of  their  doctiine  as  to  the  authority  of  synods,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  congregational  doctrine  that  they  were  merely  advisory  councils. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  Dr.  Hills  consideration  that  when  the  assembly  which 
framed  the  Cambridge  platform  adopted  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
they  made  no  exception  of  those  clauses  which  relate  to  the  power  of  civil  ma- 
gistrates in  matters  of  religion,  while  they  did  except  those  parts  "  which  have 
respect  unto  church  government  and  discipline."  Whereas  our  synod,  in  adopting 
the  same  formula,  made  no  objection  to  what  related  to  church  government; 
while  they  objected  to  what  referred  to  the  power  of  civil  magistrates. 

Dr.  Hill  says  that  the  Cambridge  platform,  "  after  being  adopted  by  the  ge- 
neral court,  and  undergoing  various  amendments  and  explanations  from  time  to 
time,  has  been  the  standard  authority  and  form  of  government  ever  since,"  p.  21. 
According  to  the  best  of  our  information,  it  has  been  a  dead  letter  for  more  than 
a  hundred  years. 


1840.]      Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.  335 

rian."*  His  very  object  in  referring  to  the  fact  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  English  Puritans  were  Presbyterians,  and  that 
many  of  those  who  came  to  this  country  belonged  to  the 
same  class,  was  to  show  the  impropriety  of  gratuitously  assu- 
ming that  all  New  England  ministers  who  entered  our  church 
were  Congregationalists.  Dr.  Hill  seems  to  think  it  was  use- 
less to  guard  against  such  an  assumption  (see  p.  47)  ;  yet  he, 
throughout  his  book,  we  believe  without  exception,  makes 
this  very  assumption.  Mr.  Andrews  he  sa)  s  was  a  Congre- 
gationalist  ;  Mr.  Abraham  Pierson,  who  he  supposes  was  or- 
dained in  Boston,  he  says  was  a  thorough  going  Congrega- 
tionalist;  he  argues,that  others  were  Congregationalists  because 
their  congregations  were  in  his  opinion  composed  of  New 
England  people  ;  and  in  one  of  those  fancy  sketches,  with 
which  his  work  abounds,  he  says,  "Makemie  induced  his 
Presbyterian  neighbouring  ministers,  who  were  brought  to 
this  country  through  his  influence,  to  unite  in  forming  a  pres- 
bytery upon  these  liberal  principles.  Andrews  had  as  much 
influence  over  his  congregational  brethren  from  New  Eng- 
land,  and  caused  them  to  drop  the  name  of  Congregational- 
ists, to  agree  to  be  called  Presbyterians,  and  thus  to  aproxi- 
mate  each  other,  and  settle  down  upon  some  common  princi- 
ples, as  fast  as  they  could  see  eye  to  eye,"  p.  114.  There 
is  not,  to  the  best  our  knowledge  and  belief,  the  slightest  his- 
torical evidence  for  all  litis.  There  is  no  evidence  that  there 
was  in  the  presbytery,  at  the  time  of  its  organization,  one  min- 
ister from  New  England,  except  Mr.  Andrews  himself,  much 
less  one  Congregationalist.  That  Mr.  Andrews  was  no  Con- 
gregationalist  is  rendered  certain  by  his  denying  every  dis- 
tinctive principle  of  Congregationalism,  and  affirming  every 
principle  distinctive  of  Presbyterianism. t  Dr.  Hill,  however, 
says,  he  never  had  any  elders  in  his  congregation.  As  this 
statement  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  minutes  of  the 
presbytery,  where  his  elder  is  named  almost  at  every  meeting, 
it  must  be  sustained  by  the  strongest  evidence,  before  it  can 
be  admitted.  The  mere  mention  of  a  committee  on  the  re- 
cords of  his  church  is  no  such  evidence  ;  since  such  com- 
mittees to  manage  the  secular  affairs  of  the  church  were  often 

*  History,  Part  1,  p.  97. 

f  How  could  a  Congregationahst  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
declaring  that  he  objected  to  nothing  but  to  certain  clauses  relating  to  the  power 
of  civil  magistrates  ?  See  also  the  four  articles  on  church  government  unani- 
mously adopted  by  the  synod  in  1722,  Constitutional  History,  P.  I.  p.  142. 


336  Dr.  HilVs  American  Presbyterianism.        [July 

appointed,  when  there  was  a  regular  session.  "  The  incor- 
porated committee"  of  the  first  church  in  Philadelphia,  were 
its  trustees.  If  however  it  should  be  proved  that  there  were 
no  elders  in  Mr.  Andrew's  church  during  his  life,  it  would  no 
more  show  that  he  was  a  Congregationalist,than  the  fact  that 
Dr.  How  and  Dr.  Snodgrass  were  pastors  of  an  independent 
congregation,  shows  that  they  are  Independents. 

The  next  subject  which  Dr.  Hill  takes  up  is  the  settlement 
of  the  Puritans  out  of  New  England.  The  first  case  on  which 
he  dwells  is  that  of  Newark.  And  "to  show  what  kind  of 
foundation  Prof.  Hodge  is  willing  sometimes  to  rest  his  state- 
ments upon,"  he  quotes  the  following  passage  from  his  his- 
tory. "  The  Rev.  Abraham  Pierson  was,  it  is  believed  [here 
is  the  evidence,  it  is  believed,  by  whom  besides  himself  we 
are  not  told,  but  it  is  believed]  episcopally  ordained  in  Eng- 
land, from  whence  he  emigrated  to  this  country  with  a  num- 
ber of  followers.  After  several  previous  attempts  at  settle- 
ment, they  fixed  themselves  at  Brandford  in  Connecticut. 
Being  dissatisfied,  however,  with  the  union  between  the  co- 
lonies of  New  Haven  and  Connecticut,  they  removed  to 
Newark.  After  continuing  the  pastor  of  the  church  there  for 
about  twenty  years,  Mr.  Pierson  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
who  was  subseepjently  appointed  the  first  president  of  Yale 
College.  These  two  ministers  tradition  relates  [here  is  his 
proof]  were  moderate  Presbyterians,  but  the  son  more  espe- 
cially [more  especially  what  ?  Why  more  especially  a  mo- 
derate Presbyterian.  What  distinction  can  be  drawn  between 
a  moderate  and  a  more  moderate  Presbyterian  ?  This  must 
be  a  nice  distinction  indeed.]  He  [that  is  the  son]  had  im- 
bibed moderate  Presbyterianism  from  his  father,  and  when  at 
Cambridge  College,  he  had  received  strong  prejudices  against 
Plymouthian  independency,  and  after  his  father's  death,  he 
was  for  introducing  more  rigid  Presbyterianism  into  New- 
ark, &c."  Dr.  Hill  quotes  the  whole  of  this  passage  as  the 
language  of  Prof.  Hodge,  though  the  part  on  which  he  parti- 
cularly comments  is  marked  as  a  quotation  from  the  venera- 
ble Dr.  M'Whorter  ;  with  whose  style  he  makes  himself 
merry.  We  quote  now  from  Dr.  Hill,  "  To  prove  that  New- 
ark was  settled  and  governed  by  Presbyterians,  Prof.  Hodge 
refers  to  a  manuscript  history,  and  asserts  that  its  writer  [Dr. 
M'Whorter,  why  did  not  Dr.  Hill  mention  his  name  ?],  says, 
"  that  an  aged  elder,  then  eighty-six  years  old,  stated  that 
there  had  been  a  church  session  at  Newark  from  the  earliest 


1840.]     Dr.  HilVs  American  Presbyterianism.  337 

lime  he  could  remember,  and  that  he  always  understood 
there  was  one  from  the  beginning  ?  Does  our  professor  ex- 
pect to  establish  historical  facts  by  such  vague  hearsay  evi- 
dence as  this  ?  Then  he  may  establish  any  thing Af- 
ter these  few  samples  of  our  professor's  ingenuity,  to  say 
nothing  of  his  candour,  the  reader  will  be  left  to  form  his 
own  opinion  respecting  the  degree  of  credit  that  ought  to  be 
given  to  his  statemens,"  p.  61.*  All  that  need  be  said  in  re- 
ply to  this  is,  that  every  thing  stated  in  reference  to  the  set- 
tlement of  Newark,  the  history  and  character  of  the  two 
Piersons,  and  the  character  of  the  church  in  that  town,  is 
given  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  M'Whorter.  That  venerable 
man  entered  our  synod  as  long  ago  as  1760,  and  however 
contemptible  his  authority  may  appear  in  the  eyes  of  Dr.  Hill, 
when  adduced  in  behalf  of  Presbyterianism,  we  doubt  not  he 
would  gladly  go  without  his  dinner  many  days  in  succession,  to 
find  any  thing  half  so  good  to  prove  that  there  was  one  solitary 
Congregationalist  in  the  original  presbytery  of  our  church. 
We  shall  soon  see  him  pleasing  himself  with  the  reminiscen- 
ces of  a  lady  still  living  in  Alexandria,  as  to  the  state  of  the 
congregation  at    Marlborough  more  than  a  hundred  years 

Dr.  Hill  is  not  satisfied  with  one  attack  upon  the  account 
given  respecting  Mr.  Piersoo,  he  returns  to  it,  on  page  64. 
After  quoting  from  Mather's  Magnalia,  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  church  of  which  Mr.  Pierson  became  the 
pastor,  at  Linn,  Massachusetts,  and  his  removal  to  Southamp- 
ton, he  adds:  "  If  our  learned  professor  of  Princeton  had 
noticed  this  chapter  of  Mather's  Magnalia,  he  would  not  have 
gone  to  guessing  that  Mr.  Pierson  had  been  episcopally  or- 
dained in  England;  he  would  have  found  that  his  ecclesiasti- 
cal standing  was  assumed  at  Boston;  and  that  he  was  as  tho- 
rough going  a  Congregationalist  as  any  of  that  day.  But  he  can 
manufacture  Presbyterians  when  and  how  he  pleases,  and  un- 

*  The  reason  given  by  Dr.  Hill  for  discrediting  the  testimony  of  Dr.  M'Whor- 
ter with  regard  to  the  younger  Pierson  is  instructive  in  more  ways  than  one.  If 
he  was  so  strict  a  Presbyterian,  is  it  supposable,  he  asks,  he  "  would  have  been 
chosen  by  the  trustees  of  Yale  College,  chiefly  composed  of  Connecticut  clergy- 
men, as  president  of  their  college  ?  The  Puritans  did  not  often  betray  such  fol- 
ly." For  Presbyterians  to  refuse  Congregationalists,  is  bigotry ;  for  Congregation- 
alists  to  receive  Presbyterians  is  folly.  To  us,  however,  nothing  is  more  suppo- 
sable than  that  though  the  Presbyterianism  of  Mr.  Pierson  might  give  offence^ to- 
some  of  his  congregation,  it  would  raise  him  in  the  respect  and  confidence  of  the 
educated  clergy  of  Connecticut.  Congregationalism  is  like  universal  suffrage, 
easy  to  get  down  to,  but  hard  to  get  up  from. 


338         Dr.  HUP s  American  Presbyter ianism.  [July 

make  them  as  fast."  The  Doctor  forgets  that  it  was 
Dr.  M'Whorter,  and  not  Mr.  Hodge,  who  made  the  Pier- 
sons  Presbyterians.  Notwithstanding  all  this  positive- 
ness,  it  is  none  the  less  certain  that  the  elder  Pierson 
was  episcopally  ordained  in  England.  The  settlement  at 
Southampton  took  place  in  1640;  and  as  Mr.  Pierson  was 
first  employed  in  Massachusetts,  he  must  have  arrived  in  the 
country  some  time  before  that  date.  And  if  a  preacher  be- 
fore his  arrival,  the  probability,  to  say  the  least,  is  that  he  was 
episcopally  ordained.  Dr.  Hill  himself  says:  "The  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  Puritans  who  settled  New  Eng- 
land, had  belonged  to  the  Episcopal  church,"  (p.  3S),  and 
there  were  few  if  any  preachers  among  them  before  1640 
who  had  not  received  their  ordination  from  the  English 
bishops.  That  Mr.  Pierson  was  a  preacher  in  England  is 
distinctly  stated  by  his  biographers.'  There  is  no  ordina- 
tion, properly  speaking,  known  to  have  occurred  in  New 
England  before  1644;  but  what  Dr.  Hill  calls  Mr.  Pierson's 
ordination,  must  have  occurred  before  1640.t  Such  ordina- 
tion, "  was  in  the  nature  and  design  of  it  only  an  instalment. 
over  a  particular  church.";);  Mr.  Hobnrt  says,  the  number  of 
ministers  who  arrived  in  New  England  before  1640  is  esti- 
mated at  ninety.  "  Dr,  Mather,"  he  adds,  "  has  given  us  the 
names  of  seventy-seven,  and  the  places  where  they  all  settled 
in  this  country.  And  the  same  list  may  be  seen  in  Mr.  Neal's 
History  of  New  England.  These  had  every  one  of  them 
been  ordained  by  the  bishops  in  England." — p.  90.  The 
fifty-third  name  on  this  list  is  that  of  the  Rev.  Abraham  Pier- 
son, of  Southampton. § 

We  have  read  and  re-read  what  Dr.  Hill  says  of  the  set- 
tlements of  the  Puritans  on  the  Delaware,  and  cannot  see  that 
he  has  been  more  successful  than  Mr.  Hodge  in  his  search 
for  historical  evidence  on  this  subject.  He  considers  it  a 
matter  of  importance,  since  so  many  of  the  churches  connect- 
ed with  the  first   presbytery  were   in  that  region  of  country. 

*  See  Allen's    Biographical  Dictionary,   and   the   authorities  therein  riled. 

f  Hobart's  Second  Address  Id  the  Episcopal  Secarafists  in  N.  E.  p.  93,  publish- 
ed 1751.  The  ordination  referred  to  in  the  text  was  that  of  Mr.  John  Wood- 
bridge,  at  Andover. 

4'  Hobart,  p.  90.  When  Mr.  Wilson  was  re-ordained  at  Charlestown,  Mass. 
in  16.30,  "  It  was  with  a  protestation  by  all,  that  it  should  be  only  as  a  sign  of 
his  election  to  the  charge  of  his  new  Hock,  without  any  intention  that  he  should 
thereby  renounce  the  ministry  he  had  received  in  England." — Magnalia,  B.  I. 
p.  22.  Such  was  the  only  ordination  Mr.  Pierson  ever  received  in  this  country. 
§  Mather's  Magnalia,  B.  Ill,  p.  I 


1840.]        Dr.  Hill's  American  Presby tenanism.  339 

If  the  kind  of  people  of  which  those  churches  were  com- 
posed can  be  ascertained,  it  would  afford  a  ground  of  presump- 
tion as  to  the  character  of  their  ministers.  Hence  his  anxi- 
ety to  prove  that  the  people  were  from  New  England. 
Though,  on  page  61,  he  quotes  Professor  Hodge,  as  saying, 
'"In  1640,  the  colony  of  New  Haven  made  a  large  purchase 
of  land  on  both  sides  of  the  Delaware,  and  sent  out  about 
fifty  families  to  make  a  settlement;"  yet  on  p.  64,  having 
cited  the  same  account  from  Trumbull  &  Holmes,  he  adds, 
"This  occurrence  entirely  escaped  Prof.  Hodge,  who  fixes 
the  first  attempt  to  settle  on  the  Delaware  in  the  year  1669, 
and  makes  even  that  a  failure."  As  to  the  failure,  Professor 
H.  does  nothing  more  than  refer  to  the  account  of  Trumbull, 
who  states  that  the  Dutch  governor,  Kieft,  dispatched  an 
armed  force,  burned  the  English  trading  houses,  seized  their 
goods,  and  made  a  number  of  the  planters  prisoners.*5  The 
Dutch  and  Swedes  had  settlements  and  claims  on  both  sides 
of  the  river;  this  settlement  from  New  Haven,  we  infer  from 
its  being  noticed  by  Gordon,  in  his  History  of  New  Jersey, 
(who  says  the  number  of  persons  sent  was  greatly  overrated), 
was  on  the  eastern  side. 

Dr.  Hill  quotes  another  passage  from  Holmes,  under  date 
1642,  which  speaks  of  a  settlement  of  about  twenty  families, 
on  land  to  which  neither  the  Dutch  nor  Swedes  had  any  just 
claim.  This  colony  suffered  so  much,  he  says,  from  sickness, 
during  the  first  summer,  as  to  threaten  its  very  existence, 
"  and  to  mend  the  matter,  Kieft,  the  Dutch  governor  of  New 
Netherlands,  without  any  protest  or  legal  warning,  sent  an 
armed  force  to  Delaware,  burned  their  trading  house,  and 
seized  their  goods."  Whether  this  was  the  same  expedition 
as  that  mentioned  by  Trumbull,  we  do  not  know.  Trum- 
bull says,  the  purchase  of  land  was  made  in  1640,  but  does 
not  say  when  the  people  were  sent  ;  Holmes  does  not  say 
when  the  land  was  bought,  but  fixes  the  settlement  in  1641, 
and  the  attack  of  Kieft  in  1642.  Neither  writer  states,  on 
which  side  of  the  river  the  settlement  was  made,  but  say  it 
was  on  land  on  which  neither  Dutch  nor  Swedes  had  any 
just  claim.  But  Dr.  Hill  tells  us  the  Swedes  "  bought  of  the 
the  natives  the  land  from  Cape  Henlopen  to  the  falls  of  the 
the  Delaware,  and  obtained  peaceable  possession"  in  1627 
and    1629.     There   were,   no    doubt,   some   New   England 

*  Trumbull's  History  of  Con.    Vol.  I.  p.  120. 
VOL.  XII.   NO.  3.  44 


340         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.         [July 

traders  on  the  west  side  of  the  Delaware,  attracted,  as  Banc- 
roft says,  by  the  climate  and  facility  of  commercial  inter- 
course, but  we  know  nothing  of  any  settlements  sufficiently 
numerous  to  exert  any  marked  influence  on  the  character  of 
the  population.  If  they  were  so  numerous  so  early  as  1640 
and  onwards,  how  comes  it,  with  their  Puritan  habits,  and 
the  great  superabundance  of  ministers  in  New  England,* 
they  never  had  a  minister  before  1700  or  1705?  On  no 
better  foundation  than  that  above  referred  to,  so  far  as  we 
can  discover,  Dr.  Hill  says:  "The  New  England  part  of  the 
population  was  no  doubt  the  most  numerous  on  the  Dela- 
ware."— p.  71.  This  remark  is  made  in  special  reference 
to  the  west  side  of  the  river,  for  it  is  made  in  order  to  deter- 
mine the  character  of  the  congregations  "  between  Philadel- 
phia and  Cape  Henlopen." 

The  last  subject  on  which  we  propose  to  say  any  thing  at 
present,  is  the  origin  of  the  original  members  of  the  presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia.  On  page  137,  Dr.  Hill  quotes  from 
Professor  Hodge  the  following  passage:  "  Of  the  original 
members  of  the  presbytery,  Mr.  Hazard  says:  'It  is  proba- 
ble that  all  except  Mr.  Andrews  were  foreigners  by  birth, 
and  that  they  were  ordained  to  the  gospel  ministry  in  Scot- 
land or  Ireland.'  The  correctness  of  this  statement  can  be 
proved  by  documentary  evidence  in  regard  to  most  of  these 
gentlemen,  and  by  the  strongest  circumstantial  evidence  with 
regard  to  others."  On  this  quotation,  he  thus  comments: 
"Now  let  us  scrutinize  this  statement  of  our  learned  profes- 
sor. The  conclusion  he  is  driving  at  is,  that  all  these  ori- 
ginal members,  but  Mr.  Andreios,  were  foreigners,  and 
had  been  ordained  to  the  ministry  in  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
Now  for  the  proof.  Mr.  Hazard,  about  thirty  years  ago, 
thought  it  probable  that  this  was  the  case;  therefore  the  case  is 
settled.  A  professor  should  be  a  little  more  logical  in  his  rea- 
soning than  this  amounts  to."  The  proof  lies  in  the  documen- 
tary and  circumstantial  evidence  referred  to.  Mr.  Hazard's 
opinion  was  mentioned  to  show  the  effect  of  that  evidence 
on  an  impartial  man.  That  it  has  not  produced  the  same 
effect  upon  Dr.  Hill  must,  we  think,  be  attributed  to  his  state 
of  mind. 

*  According  to  Dr.  Hill's  estimate  from  Mather,  of  the  number  of  emigrants 
to  New  England,  before  1610,  there  was  one  minister  for  about  every  forty-five 
persons;  according  to  Bancroft's  estimate  of  the  population,  which  "we  believe 
to  be  correct,  there  was  still  one  minister  for  every  230  or  240  of  the  inhabitants. 
Surely,  if  they  had  so  many  brethren  on  the  Delaware,  they  ought  not  to  have 
left  them  fifty  or  sixty  years  without  a  pastor. 


1S40.]         Br.  HUVs  American  Presbylerianism.        341 

With  regard  to  Messrs.  Makemie,  M'Nish,  and  Hamp- 
ton, it  is  admitted,  that  they  were  foreigners  and  presbyte- 
ria'lly  ordained,  before  they  came  to  this  country.  Mr.  An- 
drews, it  is  admitted,  was  from  Boston.  The  whole  doubt 
is  about  Messrs.  Wilson,  Davis,  and  Taylor.  Mr.  Wilson 
was  settled  at  New  Castle;  Mr.  Davis,  first  at  Lewestown, 
though  not  as  a  pastor,  and  afterwards  at  Snowhill.  "  The 
strong  presumptive  evidence  that  they  were  educated  as 
Congregationalists,"  according  to  Dr.  Hill,  "arises  from  the 
places  where  they  settled,  the  kind  of  population  of  which 
their  congregations  were  formed:  the  liberal  and  tolerant 
government  which  they  practised;  and  last,  though  not  least, 
the  peace  and  harmony  which  prevailed  among  them." — p. 
163.  Now,  as  the  form  of  government  which  they  prac- 
tised, was  the  same  as  that  practised  by  their  co-presbyters, 
Messrs.  Makemie,  M'Nish,  and  Hampton,  who  were  fo- 
reigners and  Presbj'terians,  we  cannot  see  how  it  proves 
that  the  others  were  New  England  Congregationalists.  And 
as  harmony  was  preserved  between  the  gentlemen  just 
named  and  their  brethren,  it  might  have  existed  though 
Messrs.  Wilson  and  Davis  were  Presbyterians.  The  case 
turns,  then,  on  "the  kind  of  population  of  which  their  con- 
gregations were  formed."  We  are  willing  to  let  it  rest 
there.  If  Dr.  Hill  will  make  it  appear  that  New  Castle, 
Lewestown,  and  Snowhill  were  New  England  settlements, 
we  will  admit  that  he  has  gained  one  ground  for  presuming 
that  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Davis  were  from  New  England.* 

The  only  remaining  case  is  that  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor. 

*  On  page  71,  Dr.  Hill  says  :  "  The  New  England  part  of  the  population, 
which  was  no  doubt  most  numerous  upon  the  Delaware  river,  would  of  courso 
look  to  be  supplied  from  New  England."  The  minutes  of  presbytery  inform  us, 
that  the  people  of  Lewes  were  at  an  early  period   looking  somewhere  else.     In 

1707,   it  was  "ordered  by  the  presbytery  that  Mr. and  Mr.  Makemie 

write  to  Scotland  to  Mr.  Alexander  Coldin,  minister  of  Oxman,  in  the  presby- 
tery of to  give  an  account  of  the  state  and  circumstances  of  the  dis- 
senting Presbyterian  interest  among  the  people  in  and  about  Lewestown,  and  to 
signify  the  earnest  desires  of  that  people  for  the  said  Mr.  Coldin  coming  over  to 
be  their  minister.  And  that  Mr.  Makemie  make  report  of  his  diligence  herein 
to  the  next  presbytery.  The  presbytery  appoints  Mr.  John  Wilson  to  write  to 
the  presbytery  of to  the  effect  foresaid,  and  to  make  report  of  his  dili- 
gence herein  to  the  next  presbytery."  The  first  name  in  this  minute  is  oblite- 
rated, except  the  last  letter  re.  The  latter  part  of  the  record  shows  that  it  was 
the  name  of  Mr.  Wilson,  who,  with  Mr.  Makemie,  was  to  write  a  joint  letter  to  Mr. 
Coldin,  and  a  separate  letter  to  the  presbytery,  the  name  of  which  is  not  given. 
This  is  one  of  the  circumstances  which  connects  Mr.  Wilson  with  Scotland. 
We  do  not  know  how  Dr.  Hill  will  account  for  New  England  people  writing  to 
Scotland  for  a  minister. 


342  Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyle^rianism.       [July 

Professor  Hodge  had  stated,  on  the  authority  of  the  late  Dr. 
Balch,  that  Col.  Ninian  Beall,  a  native  of  Scotland,  having 
been  driven  by  persecution  from  his  own  country,  came  to 
Maryland  about  1G90  ;  that  he  wrote  home  for  his  friends 
and  neighbours  to  join  him,  and  that  in  consequence  of  his 
exertions  about  two  hundred  of  them  came,  bringing  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Taylor  as  their  pastor,  and  formed  the  church  and 
congregation  of  Upper  Marlborough.  This  account  Dr.  Hill 
very  unceremoniously  rejects.  He  calls  it  a  story,  a  tale; 
says  Dr.  Balch  was  misinformed,  conjectures  that  the  account 
was  received  from  him  when  he  was  "  far  gone  in  second 
childhood,"  &c.  He  insists  upon  it  "  That  the  first  account 
we  hear  of  a  church  at  Marlborough  was  a  petition  sent  to 
presbytery  about  the  year  1715  or  1716,  from  a  few  Scotch 
merchants  and  others  for  supplies  of  preaching.  Two  mem- 
bers, Messrs.  Conn  and  Orme  were  sent  to  those  regions  to 
look  after  the  people  at  Marlborough,  and  others.  Both  of 
these  ministers  settled  west  of  the  Chesapeake,  in  Maryland, 
and  Mr.  Conn  was  ordained  and  settled  at  Marlborough  in 
the  year  1716  as  their  first  minister,  as  the  records  of  the 
mother  presbytery  will  show."  "  Such  a  Scotch  congrega- 
tion and  minister  [as  those  mentioned  by  Dr.  Balch]  never 
existed.  It  is  all  a  mistake.  Dr.  Balch  must  have  been  mis- 
informed. Before  1716  the  people  and  congregation  of 
Marlborough  were  never  mentioned  or  alluded  to,  in  the 
minutes  of  the  presbytery,  as  being  under  their  care."  p.  85. 
All  these  assertions  are  repeated  on  p.  152-4,  where  he  men- 
tions that  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  son  and  grand- 
daughter of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Orme  above  mentioned,  from  whom 
he  received  his  information  concerning  that  part  of  Mary- 
land, and  who  agreed  that  there  never  was  a  congregation 
organized  in  that  region  of  country  before  the  visit  of  Messrs. 
Conn  and  Orme. 

The  main  position  of  Dr.  Hill,  and  that  on  which  his  whole 
cause  depends,  is  that  the  congregation  of  Marlborough  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  minutes  before  1715.  We  must  premise 
here  that  Marlborough  lies  on  the  Patuxent  river,  hence  Dr. 
Hill  sometimes  calls  the  congregation  in  question  Marlbo- 
rough, and  sometimes  Patuxent.  The  minutes  do  the  same 
thing.  In  1715  it  was  ordered  that  "a  letter  be  written  to 
the  people  of  Patuxent,"  and  we  find  it  addressed  "To  our 
Christian  friends  at  Marlborough."  These,  then,  according 
to  Dr.  Hill  and  the  minutes,  were  different  names  for  the 
same  congregation.     As  early  as  1711,  we  find  the  following 


1S40.]        Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyter ianism.         343 

repeated  mention  of  this  congregation.  "  Mr.  M'Nish's 
affair  in  reference  to  Patuxent  deferred  to  another  time."  p. 
12.  And  on  the  same  page,  "Mr.  M'Nish's  case  came  un- 
der consideration,  and  it  was  determined  to  leave  his  affair 
respecting  Jamaica  and  Patuxent  to  himself;  with  the  ad- 
vice, not  to  delay  fixing  himself  somewhere."  The  simple 
explanation  of  these  minutes  is  this.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor 
who,  Dr.  Balch  says,  was  the  first  pastor  of  the  Patuxent 
people,  died  about  1710.  He  was  present  at  the  presbytery 
in  1709,  but  never  appeared  again.  His  congregation  being 
thus  left  vacant,  they  called  Mr.  M'Nish,  and  he  having  at 
the  same  time  received  a  call  from  Jamaica,  Long  Island,  was 
left  to  decide  between  them.  He  decided  in  favour  of  Jamai- 
ca, where  it  is  known  he  settled  in  1712  ;  and  accordingly, 
supplies  became  necessary  for  Patuxent;  hence  it  was  "  or- 
dered that  Mr.  Wilson  do  supply  the  people  of  Patuxent  four 
sabbaths  ;  Mr.  Henry  four  sabbaths,  and  Mr.  Hampton  is 
left  to  himself  to  supply  sometimes  if  he  can."  All  this  was 
in  1711  ;  so  much  for  the  assertion  that  there  is  no  allusion  to 
this  congregation  before  1710.  It  should  be  stated  that  no 
church  is  mentioned  on  the  minutes,  unless  there  was  some 
particular  occasion  for  it.  We  are  not  aware  that  the  first 
church  in  Philadelphia  is  mentioned  for  the  first  twenty  or 
thirty  years,  and  simply  because  there  was  no  occasion  to 
mention  it.  So  in  the  case  of  Marlborough,  as  long  as  Mr. 
Taylor  lived,  his  church  had  no  reason  for  appearing  before 
the  presbytery  ;  but  as  soon  as  he  was  dead,  we  find  them  so- 
liciting for  another  minister,  or  for  supplies. 

Dr.  Hill's  next  assertion,  viz.  that  Mr.  Conn  organized  the 
church  at  Patuxent,  and  became  their  first  pastor  in  1715  or 
1716,  is  of  course  refuted  by  the  preceding  records,  which 
prove  at  least  the  existence  of  the  congregation  in  1711. 
This  assertion,  however,  is  repeated  in  various  forms,  and 
with  much  detail.  "  About  the  year  1714,"  says  Dr.  Hill, 
"  two  young  men,  licentiates  or  students  in  theology,  arrived 
from  England,  Hugh  Conn  and  John  Orme.  The  next  year, 
1715,  Mr.  Conn  was  ordained  and  sent  to  preach  to  the  peo- 
ple about  Patuxent  and  Bladensburg.  He  organized  congre- 
gations at  each  of  those  places  and  became  their  first  pastor, 
and  lived  and  died  such."  It  will  appear  from  what  follows 
that  Mr.  Conn,  so  far  from  being  the  first  pastor  of  Fatuxent, 
was  never  the  pastor  of  that  congregation  at  all.  He  was 
received  by  the  presbytery  as  a  licentiate  in  1715,  as  appears 
from  the  following  record.     "  Mr.  James  Gordon  having  pre- 


344  Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyterianism.       [July 

sented  a  call  from  the  people  of  Baltimore  county,  in  Mary- 
land, unto  Mr.  Hugh  Conn,  the  presbytery  called  for,  con- 
sidered and  approved  the  said  Mr.  Conn's  credentials  as  a 
preacher  of  the  gospel,  and  likewise  considered  and  approved 
the  call,  which  being  presented  by  the  moderator  unto  Mr. 
Conn,  he  accepted  of  it,  whereupon  it  was  appointed  that 
Messrs.  Magill,  Anderson,  Gillespie,  Wortherspoon  and 
Evans,  after  being  satisfied  with  his  ministerial  abilities, 
should  solemnly,  by  prayer,  fasting,  and  the  imposition  of 
hands,  ordain  him  unto  the  work  of  the  ministry  among  the 
above  said  people,  the  third  Thursday  of  October  next.  "  He 
was  ordained,  therefore,  over  the  people  in  Baltimore  county, 
and  not  over  the  Patuxent  people.  What  makes  this  matter 
still  more  certain  is,  that  the  Patuxent  people  had  at  this  very 
time  a  pastor  settled  over  them.  In  September,  1715,  a 
month,  therefore,  before  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Conn,  it  was 
"  ordered  that  Messrs.  Andrews,  M'Nish  and  Gillespie  write 
a  letter  to  the  people  of  Patuxent  in  relation  to  the  present 
posture  of  their  affairs."  In  that  letter  the  presbytery  say, 
"  We  had  much  comfort  in  hearing  from  our  brother  and  your 
Reverend  pastor,  that  when  (as  is  our  practice)  he  was  inter- 
rogated concerning  the  manner  of  his  people's  deportment 
towards  him  in  his  pastoral  office,  he  made  his  answers  wholly 
to  their  advantage."  The  letter  is  principally  an  exhortation 
to  peace,  and  a  caution  against  Satan's  attempts  to  produce  di- 
visions among  them.  And  in  conclusion  they  say,  "  We  re- 
commend to  you  earnestly  a  Christian  regard  to  our  worthy 
brother,  your  pastor,  and  that  you  encourage,  honour  and  obey 
him  in  the  Lord,  that  his  labours,  as  they  are  for  his  people, 
so  they  may  turn  to  his  and  their  account  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord." 

Dr.  Balch  states  that  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Taylor,  this 
congregation  was  vacant  for  about  three  years,  but  at  last  ob- 
tained a  pastor,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Magill,  from  some  presbytery 
in  Scotland.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  name  of  Mr. 
Taylor  ceases  to  appear  on  the  minutes  after  the  year  1709, 
that  in  1711  the  congregation  called  Mr.  M'Nish,  but  that 
he  declined,  and  in  1713  Mr.  Magill  was  received  as  an  or- 
dained minister,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  extract. 
"Mr.  Robert  Lawson,  Mr.  Daniel  Magill,  and  Mr  George 
Gillespie,  having  applied  to  this  presbytery  for  admittance 
as  members  thereof,  the  presbytery  finding,  by  their  ample 
testimonials,  that  they  have  been  legally  and  orderly  ordained 


1840.]         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbyttrianism.         345 

as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  that  they  have  since  behaved 
themselves  as  such,  did  cheerfully  and  cordially  receive  them, 
and  they  took  their  places."  The  coincidence  does  not  stop 
here,  Dr.  Balch  says  Mr.  Magill  was  an  austere  or  morose 
man,  got  into  difficulty  with  his  people,  and  left  them.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  that  in  1715,  two  years  after  his  settlement, 
there  was  trouble  in  the  congregation,  and  that  the  presbytery 
found  it  necessary  to  write  to  them  and  to  exhort  them  to 
exercise  proper  feelings  towards  their  pastor;  and  in  1719  Mr. 
Magill  was  without  any  pastoral  charge;  for  it  is  recorded  in 
the  minutes  for  that  year  that  an  overture  was  presented 
"that  Mr.  Magill  and  Mr.  Orr  have  synodical  testimonials, 
they  havig  at  present  no  particular  pastoral  charges."  p.  4S. 

Again,  Dr.  Balch  says  that  after  the  departure  of  Mr.  Ma- 
gill the  congregation  obtained,  through  the  intervention  of 
certain  London  merchants,  the  Rev.  John  Orme  as  their  pas- 
tor. This  statement  also  fully  accords  with  the  minutes;  for 
in  1720  the  minutes  state  that  "  Mr.  John  Orme  presented  to 
the  synod  his  testimonials  relating  to  his  ordination  and  his 
qualifications  for  the  gospel  ministry,  which  the  synod  was 
satisfied  with,  and  upon  his  desire  he  was  received  as  a  mem- 
ber of  this  synod."*  p.  51. 

Here  then  are  a  series  of  coincidences  which  admit  of  no 
other  explanation  than  the  truth  of  Dr.  Balch's  history.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  Mr.  Taylor  came  to  this  country  with  his 
people  towards  the  beginning  of  the  last  century ;  he  died  ear- 
ly, and  after  an  interval  of  a  few  years  was  succeeded  by  Mr. 
Magill,  who  differed  with  his  people,  and  left  them,  and  was 
succeeded  in  1719  by  Mr.  Orme.  We  learn  from  the  min- 
utes that  Mr.  Taylor  was  a  member  of  the  presbytery  in  1705, 
that  he  was  dead  in  1710,  that  as  soon  as  he  died  the  Patux- 
ent  congregation  were  without  a  minister;  as  soon  as  Mr.  Ma- 
gill appears  on  the  minutes  they  are  found  to  have  a  pastor;  and 
when  he  is  reported  as  without  a  charge,  Mr.  Orme  appears, 
and  not  before.  As  these  accounts  are  entirely  independent 
of  each  other,  their  agreement  renders  their  correctness,  even 
on  the  principles  of  the  mathematical  doctrine  of  chances, 
certain. 

*  Dr.  Balch  says  Mr.  Orme  remained  the  pastor  of  Marborough  until  he  died 
in  1758,  in  the  seven  ty-eigth  year  of  his  age.  The  death  of  Mr.  Conn  was  report- 
ed to  the  synod  in  1753.  He  could  never  therefore  have  been  the  pastor  of  that 
church-  He  was  the  pastor  of  Bladensburgh;  and  Dr.  Hill,  by  making  him  pas- 
tor of  Marlborough,  has  left  Mr.  Oime,  who  he  says  correctly  was  a  neighbour  of 
Mr.  Conn,  without  any  known  charge  in  that  region  of  country. 


346         Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbytcrianism.         [Jult 

Considering  that  Dr.  Balch  derived  his  information  from 
oral  tradition,  its  accuracy  is  a  matter  of  wonder,  though 
his  opportunities  of  learning  the  facts  which  he  records  were 
unusually  good.  "My  wife,"  he  writes  to  Dr.  Green,  "  is  a 
great  grand  daughter  of  Col.  Ninian  Beall,  who  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  Marlborough,  and 
was  one  of  the  most  active  members  in  building  it  up.  More- 
over, my  father-in-law,  Col.  George  Beall,  who  died  lately 
in  the  seventy-third  year  of  his  age,  and  who,  in  the  male 
line,  was  grand  son  of  Col.  Ninian  Beall,  was  well  acquaint- 
ed with  some  of  the  circumstances  which  I  relate,  and  which 
you  and  Mr.  Hazard  wish  to  know." 

Dr.  Balch  furnished  two  accounts  of  this  interesting  con- 
gregation; the  one  dated  April  2d,  1793,  and  the  other  De- 
cember 15th,  1S10,  neither,  therefore,  written  during  his 
second  childhood,  as  Dr.  Hill  conjectures.  The  former, 
which  is  much  shorter  and  more  general  than  the  other,  does 
not  present  a  single  case  of  discrepance  with  the  official  re- 
cords of  the  presbytery.*     In  his  second  communication, 

*  We  here  insert  all  that  part  of  this  account  which  relates  to  the  early  his- 
toty  of  this  congregation.  "  In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  king  of  Great  Britain,  a 
persecution  was  set  on  foot  by  the  Episcopalians  against  the  Presbyterians. 
This  storm  fell  with  great  weight  upon — [we  cannot  make  out  the  word  here] ; 
many  of  them  were  burnt,  drowned,  hung,  or  otherwise  tortured  to  death ;  others 
were  compelled  to  leave  their  pleasant  houses,  their  wives  and  children,  and  to  take 
refuge  in  foreign  climes.  Of  this  latter  class,  was  Col.  Ninian  Beall,  a  native 
of  North  Britain,  who,  for  the  sake  of  conscience,  fled  from  his  own  land  and 
nation,  and  fought  for  that  liberty  in  Maryland  which  was  denied  him  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Some  years  aftei  his  arrival  in  Maryland,  he  made  a 
purchase  of  several  large  tracts  of  land  from  the  tribe  of  Piscataway  Indians.  On 
one  of  these  tracts  he  laid  out  the  town  of  Upper  Marlborough,  and  there  fixed  his 
own  residence.  Remembering  that  he  had  a  large  number  of  relations  at  home, 
subjected  to  the  same  sufferings  from  which  he  had  escaped,  and  now  enjoying 
the  sweets  of  religious  and  civil  liberty,  he  wrote  to  his  friends  to  come  over  to 
Maryland,  and  participate  of  his  happiness,  urging  it  upon  them,  at  the  same  time, 
to  bring  with  them  a  faithful  minister  of  the  gospel.  They  arrived  some  months 
afterwards,  accompanied  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  their  pastor.  Col.  Beall  mark- 
ed off  a  lot  in  Upper  Marlborough  for  a  meeting  house  and  burying  ground, 
containing  about  an  acre  and  a  half  of  land.  A  house  for  public  worship  was 
built,  and  the  small  but  growing  congregation  were  happy  and  thankful  under 
the  labours  of  their  minister,  when,  lo  !  Mr.  Taylor,  to  the  great  grief  and  con- 
sternation of  his  flock,  was  suddenly  called  into  the  invisible  world.  They  la- 
mented, for  a  time,  this  dark  process  of  divine  Providence ;  at  last,  however, 
they  took  courage,  and  made  application  to  some  of  the  presbyteries  or  synods  in 
Scotland  for  another  minister.  Mr.  Magill  was  sent  over,  and  being  by  nature  of 
a  morose,  sulky  temper,  he  and  the  congregation  soon  differed  and  parted.  The 
Rev.  John  Orme,  a  native  of  Derbyshire,  was  fixed  on  for  their  next  pastor. 
He  arrived  at  Upper  Marlborough  in  1719,  and  continued  labouring  among 
them  with  success  until  the  vear  1758,  when  he  was  removed  from  his  charge 
by  death." 


1840.]      Dr.  Hill's  American  Presbi/terianis?n.  347 

Dr.  Balch  goes  more  into  detail.  After  narrating  particu- 
larly the  manner  of  Col.  Beall's  escape  from  Scotland,  he 
fixes  his  arrival  in  this  country  at  about  1690,  and  that  of  his 
friends,  to  the  number  of  at  least  two  hundred,  about  1700.* 
He  calls  Mr.  Taylor,  Mr.  James  Taylor,  instead  of  Natha- 
niel, and  Mr.  Magill,  Mr.  Robert  Magill.  He  also  places  the 
death  of  Mr.  Taylor  in  1703,  whereas  he  was  living  in  Sep- 
tember, 1709.  Such  inaccuracies  are  precisely  what  might 
be  expected  from  an  attempt  to  be  so  particular  in  giving, 
from  tradition,  such  minute  circumstances. t  Instead  of  weak- 
ening, however,  the  credibility  of  his  account,  they  rather 
confirm  it,  by  showing  that  it  is  entirely  independent  of  the 
official  records,  by  which,  as  to  all  the  essential  points,  it  is  so 
wonderfully  confirmed.  All  the  main  facts,  in  Dr.  Balch's 
statement,  viz:  that  Mr.  Taylor  was  the  pastor  of  Marlbo- 
rough before  1705,  that  he  died  early,  that  he  was  succeeded 
by  Mr.  Magill,  and  he  by  Mr.  Orme,  are  sustained  by  the 
coincident  statements  of  the  minutes,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  of  their  correctness. 

With  regard  to  Mr.  John  Boyd,  who  was  ordained  by  the 
presbytery  at  the  first  meeting  of  which  the  records  are  ex- 
tant, viz:  that  of  1706,  Dr.  Hill  says,  "Who  he  was  and 
whence  he  came,  we  know  not.  Professor  Hodge  claims 
him  as  a  Scotchman;  but  what  credit  is  due  to  such  claims 
from  our  professor,  or  to  such  unpublished  manuscripts  of 
which  he  has  had  the  exclusive  privilege  of  culling  from,  we 
have  already  seen." — p.  164.  On  the  6th  page  of  the  mi- 
nutes, it  is  recorded:  "  A  letter,  presented  by  the  people  of 
Freehold,  about  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Boyd,  is  referred  to 
the  next  meeting."  And  again,  on  the  same  page,  "  ordered 
that  Mr.  Boyd  shall  supply,  every  third  sabbath,  at  Wood- 

*  Professor  Hodge  was  inaccmate  in  stating  1690  instead  of  1700  as  the  date 
of  Mr.  Taylor's  arrival  in  this  country.  This  mistake  arose  from  his  confusing 
the  two  accounts  given  hy  Dr.  Balch.  In  the  one  he  states  that  Col.  Beall 
arrived  1690,  and  in  the  other,  that  his  friends  came  some  years  after,  without 
mentioning  the  year.  Hence  Mr.  Hodge  stated  the  time  as  about  1690.  This 
mistake  is  of  little  consequence,  as  the  only  point  of  interest  was  to  show  that 
Mr.  Taylor,  was  in  this  country  before  the  organization  of  the  presbytery  in 
1705. 

f  The  mistakes  and  confusion  as  to  names  in  the  records  and  other  manuscripts 
connected  with  the  history  of  our  church  are  exceedinir  numerous.  The  same 
name  is  often  written  several  different  wavs.  The  Mr.  John  Boyd  of  the  minutes 
is  called  first.  Samuel  and  then  Robert  Boyd  by  Dr.  Woodhull.  The  man  who 
appears  on  the  minutes  fifty  times,  as  Mr.  John  Guild,  suddenly  appears  for 
one  occasion,  as  Mr.  Jonathan  Guile.  We  see  too  that  the  person  whom  Dr. 
Balch  calls  Col.  Ninian  Beall,  Dr.  Hill  calls  Col.  Ninian  Bell. 
VOL.  XII.     NO>  3.  45 


34S         Dr.  Hill's  American  Preaby terianism.         [JuLT 

bridge,  if  they  desire  it,  and  the  presbytery  are  to  write  to  the 
people  of  Freehold,  desiring  there  consent  thereto."  In  the 
letter  to  certain  ministers  in  Connecticut,  by  the  presbytery, 
quoted  at  length  by  Dr.  Hill,  p.  89,  it  is  said:  We  advised, 
"  that  Mr.  Boyd,  minister  at  Freehold,  should,  if  desired  by 
the  dissenting  part}-,  come  and  preach  at  Woodbridge,  one 
Lord's  day  every  three  weeks."  Dr.  Hill,  therefore,  had 
lite  means  of  knowing  at  least  that  Mr.  Bovd  was  minister  of 
the  Scotch  congregation  at  Freehold;  and  if  we  are  not  misin- 
formed, the  following  passage  from  the  manuscript  volume  of 
Mr.  Hazard  has  passed  under  his  eye,  though  now  forgotten: 
"The  death  of  the  Rev.  John  Boyd  was  announced  to  the 
presbytery  in  their  present  session  (1709).  He  came  to 
America  from  Scotland,  and  was  the  first  pastor  of  the  church 
at  Freehold  in  New  Jersey."  Mr.  Hazard's  authority  for 
this  statement  is,  indeed,  the  same  manuscript  history  of  that 
church  to  which  Mr.  Hodge  appealed.  Though  Dr.  Hill 
does  seem  disposed  to  admit  its  testimony,  its  correspond- 
ence with  the  statement  of  the  records  of  presbytery,  as  well 
as  the  source  whence  it  was  derived,  place  its  authority  on  a 
perfectly  satisfactory  basis.* 

The  greater  portion  of  the  volume  before  us  consists  of  a 
review  of  about  ninety  pages  of  the  first  part  of  Professor 
Hodge's  History.  Dr.  Hill  intimates  his  purpose  to  con- 
tinue this  review  in  the  future  numbers  of  his  work.  After 
the  exhibition  which  has  just  been  made,  we  are  satisfied 
*•  the  public  will  feel   that  they  have   no   right  ^o  assume  that 

the  correctness  of  his  representations  is  admitted,  should  they 
be  allowed  to  pass  uncontradicted.  Any  mistakes  in  Pro- 
fessor Hodge's  work  which  he  may  detect  and  expose,  we 
doubt  not  that  gentleman  will  feel  bound  to  acknowledge  and 
correct.  As  yet  there  is  but  one  such  error,  to  the  best  of 
our  knowledge  or  belief,  which  calls  for  such  acknowledge- 
ment. It  relates  to  the  following  passage  in  Mather's  Mag- 
nalia.  "Before  the  woful  wars  which  broke  forth  in  the 
three  kingdoms,  there  were  divers  gentlemen  in  Scotland, 
who,  being  uneasy  under  the  ecclesiastical  burdens  of  the 
times,  wrote  over  to  New  England  their  inquiries:  Whether 
they  might  be  there  suffered  freely  to  exercise  their  Presby- 
terian church  government?  And  it  was  freely  answered,  that 
they  might.    Hereupon,  they  sent  over  an  agent,  who  pitched 

*   It  was  written  in  1790  by  the  late   Dr.  John  Woodhull,  for  many  years  the 
pastor  of  the  church  at  Freehold. 


1840.]  Dr.  HilVs  American  Presbylerianism.         349 

upon  a  tract  of  land  near  the  mouth  of  Merrimack  river, 
whither  they  intended  to  transplant  themselves.  But,  al- 
though they  had  so  far  proceeded  in  their  voyage  as  to  be 
half  seas  through,  the  manifold  crosses  they  met  withal  made 
them  give  over  their  intentions;  and  the  providence  of  God 
so  ordered  it,  that  some  of  lho<e  very  gentlemen  were  after- 
wards the  revivers  of  that  well  known  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  which  had  so  great  an  influence  on  the  following 
circumstances  of  the  nation.  However,  the  number  of  those 
who  did  actually  arrive  in  New  England  before  1640,  has 
been  computed  at  about  4,000;  since  which  time,  far  more 
have  gone  out  of  the  country  than  have  come  into  it;  and 
the  God  of  heaven  so  smiled  upon  the  plantations,  while  un- 
der an  easy  and  equal  government,  that  the  designs  of  Chris- 
tianity, in  well  formed  churches,  have  been  carried  on  so 
as  no  history  can  parallel  it."  We  think  the  most  obvious 
and  natural  interpretation  of  this  passage  is:  that  although 
the  attempt  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  to  make  a  settle- 
ment at  the  mouth  of  the  Merrimack  river,  was  frustrated, 
yet  the  number  of  those  Presbyterians  who  did  actually  ar- 
rive in  New  England  before  1640,  was  about  4,000.  We 
still  think,  that  any  reader  would  suppose  the  writer  spoke 
of  the  Presbyterians,  whom  he  had  just  mentioned.  Dr. 
Hill,  however,  sajs  that,  upon  a  close  inspection  of  the  pas- 
sage, it  will  be  seen  that  Mather  meant  to  say,  that  the  num- 
ber of  settlers  of  all  classes  who  arrived  before  1640,  was 
about  four  thousand.  We  believe  that  he  is  right  in  his  ex- 
planation, though  we  doubt  whether  any  inspection  of  the 
passage  would  ever  have  led  us  to  that  conclusion.  We 
find,  however,  the  same  statement  in  other  writers  who  re- 
fer to  Mather  as  their  authority,  and  we  therefore  infer  that 
Professor  Hodge  is  wrong,  and  Dr.  Hill  is  right  as  to  this 
point.  The  reason  why  this  latter  explanation  of  the  pas- 
sage never  occurred  to  Mr.  Hodge,  no  doubt,  is  that  the 
statement  that  only  about  four  thousand  emigrants  arrived  in 
New  England  before  1640,  appeared  incredible.  And  we 
think  the  estimate  incorrect,  for  the  following  reasons:  First, 
other  writers  of  high  authority  estimate  the  number  at 
more  than  twenty-one  thousand;*  and,  secondly,  if  it  is  true 
that  from  1640  to  near  the  close  of  the  century,  more  people 

*  Dr.  Hill,  in  the  very  note  in  which  he  corrects  Professor  Hodge's  mistake, 
tells  us,  from  Holmes,  that  in  the  two  years,  1637  and  1638  alone,  six  thousand 
emigrants  arrived. 


350  The  Baconian  Philosophy .  July 

left  the  country  than  came  into  it,  how  is  it  possible  to  ac- 
count for  the  number  of  inhabitants  known  to  be  in  New 
England  about  1700?  This  number  is  estimated,  even  by 
those  who  had  no  disposition  to  swell  the  amount,  at  120,000 
in  the  three  provinces  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and 
Rhode  Island.  The  natural  increase  of  four  thousand,  under 
the  most  favourable  circumstances,  in  a  little  more  than  sixty 
years,  would  not  amount  to  one  fourth  of  that  number.  But 
the  circumstances  of  New  England  were  not  the  most  favour- 
able to  a  rapid  natural  increase  of  the  population.  The  sick- 
ness and  hardships  attendant  on  new  settlements  always  retard 
more  or  less  their  progress;  and  several  bloody  wars  with  the 
Indians  occurred  during  this  period,  which  must  have  had  no 
small  influence  in  checking  the  advance  of  the  population. 
How  is  it  possible,  then,  that  4,000  emigrants  could,  with- 
in the  time  specified,  have  furnished  120,000  people  to  New 
England,  besides  the  numbers  who  settled  upon  Long  Island 
and  in  New  Jersey?  And  where  is  Dr.  Hill  to  get  the  people 
whom  he  makes  so  numerous  on  both  banks  of  the  Delaware? 
The  Puritans  were  a  wonderful  people,  but  the)'  could  not 
achieve  impossibilities.  We  believe,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Ma- 
ther is  wrong  in  his  calculations.  The  whole  of  Bancroft's 
twenty-one  thousand  is  necessary  to  account  for  the  subse- 
quent population  of  the  country.  We  have  only  to  remark, 
in  conclusion,  that  Professor  Hodge's  representation  of  the 
influence  of  Presbyterian  sentiments  in  New  England,  rested 
only  in  a  small  degree  upon  his  mistaken  interpretation  of 
Mather.  That  representation  was  founded  on  the  explicit 
statements  of  the  union  of  Presbyterians  and  Congregation- 
alists  in  the  New  England  churches,  elsewhere  given  by 
Mather  and  Trumbull,  and  upon  the  nature  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal systems  there  adopted. 


Art.  III. —  The   Works  of  Lord  Bacon.     Edited  by  Basil 
Montague,  Esq.     London:  William  Pickering.  1838. 

The  object  of  this  article,  is  to  exhibit  the  nature  of  the 
Logic  taught  by  Aristotle,  in  his  Organon,  and  the  nature  of 
the  Method  of  Investigation  taught  by  Bacon,  in  his  Novum 
Organon.     We  have  treated  these  two  great  subjects  in  con- 


CONTENTS  OF  NO.  III. 


Aht.  I. — Three  Sermons  upon  Human  Nature,  being  the  first,  second, 
and  third  of  fifteen  Sermons  preached  at  the  Rolls  Chapel. 
By  Joseph  Butler,  LL.D.,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Biistol;  as 
published  in  two  volumes  at  Glasgow,  in  1769.  -  299 

Art.  II. — A  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  Genius,  and  Character  of 
American  Presbyterianism.  Together  with  a  Review  of  the 
"Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  by  Charles  Hodge,  Professor  in 
the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.  J."  By  Wil- 
liam  Hill,  D.  D.,  of  Winchester,  Virginia.  -  322 

Art.  III. — The  Works  of  Lord  Bacon.     Edited  by  Basil  Montague, 

Esq.  ......  350 

Aht.  IV. — Catalogus  CollegU  Neo-Cssariensis.     Princetonis.  377 

Art.  V. — Psychology;  or  a  View  of  the  Human  Soul:  including  An- 
thropology, being  the  substance  of  a  Course  of  Lectures,  de- 
livered to  the  Junior  Class,  Marshall  College,  Penn.  By 
Fiederick  A.  Rauch.  ....  393 

Art.  VI.— The  General  Assembly  of  1840.        -  -  -  411 

Art.  VII. — Critical  and    Miscellaneous  Essays.      By   T.  Babington 

Macaulay.  .....  431 

Quarterly  List  of  New  Books  and  Pamphlets>      ...  452 


:ik'I  the  Repertory  to  those  subscribe]. 
y  of ,! i 


THE   BIBLICAL   REPERTORY 

Is  published  quarterly,  in  January,  April,  July,  and  October,  at 
three  dollars  per  annum,  payable  in  advance. 

(Tjr"  It  is  a  standiufT  rule  of  the  ] 
do  not  give  notice  of  ■ 
is  given,  the  woi' 
the  Proprietor, 
numbers  :  ai 

Subscribe 
to  be  j 

Perso) 

Sam  < 
stating 
The 
Union,  is  no 


o 


T    OF 


Boston,  Perliin 

\Nexuburvport, 

yllbany,  E.  H-  ' 
Wev>  JV  I 
|     Mercer  Si 

\jRocli. 
\Troy,  Elii 

I  Trenton.  ( 
Jfnu  Bn 
"Nassau  V 
i  Prin  • 
\EUxabeihio; 


Alex.  E 
nary 
Congr 
Canons 
II  ashing 
Easton,  Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.D. 

MAHYLAXI). 

Baltimore,  David  Owen. 

TinnixiA. 
Fairfield,  Rev.  J.  Paine; 
Petersburg,  Andrew  S.  Holderby. 
Theol.  Sem.,  P.  Edward,  Mr.  F.  Sampson 
Norfolk,  Rev.  J.  D.  Matthews. 
'•Richmond,  Rev.  Dr.  Plumer. 
Romney,  Rev.  W.  H-  Foot. 
Winchester,  John  IV.  Bell. 
Coxumansviell,  Rev.  J.  SpottSWDcd. 

NOTT 

Favettevi<r.  !' 

mihboi  . 

Cam 1 1  ■ 
Thee,  5 
Colutiu 

Charleston,  1) 
Chester  Iti 


rncr 

' 

South  .tfla't 
Floret-i 

!  <m-ee.  Re 

>Vew  •'■ 

OjyfcrJ,  Rev!  D 

KENTUCKY. 

Louisville,  Rev.  W.  L.  Breckinridge. 
Lexington,  Rev.  Robert  Davidson. 
Nicholasville,  Rev.  J.  F.  Coons. 

OHIO. 

Cincinnati,  Rev.  J.  Burt. 
Steubenrille,  Rev.  H.  Coraingo. 
Athens,  E.  E.  Chester. 
Oxford,  John  M'Arlhm 

INDIANA. 

Indianapolis,  Hex.  Wni.  A.  Hoi 
Se?/r/i 
Genera 
J.  Stafford. 

,.  0.  Bell. 


j 


